Understanding Evolution

[justlookinla]

No. You really aren't very good at this reading thing, are you?

It was a bird!!!

 

[Dizredux]

Nothing has been observed to support that conclusion. You're seeming to wish to not address your birds will always produce birds will always produce birds stance. We're seeing the claim that life form other than birds produced birds, aren't we? Do you agree with that view? If you do, you'll have to modify your birds will be birds will be birds position.



Birds will no longer be birds will be birds? You misspoke apparently in your original claim.



Feathered dinosaurs are actually birds but someone simply decided to name them something else? And the predecessors or the feathered dinosaurs were actually birds but some folks decided to call them something else. Until you get to the first alleged life form which was actually a bird, but folks just decided to call it something else?

I don't blame you for wishing to now reject such a horrendous view of life.



Amazing information there.



I so much want to comment on that classification but would probably get me banned. Ole Linnaeus apparently had a sense of humor....and had a vendetta against Robins.



Birds are birds except when they aren't. So birds will always produce birds will always produce birds....except when they don't.

Mighty convenient.

That is very good example of your reading comprehension issues. You have misunderstood about as badly as one can get.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

That is very good example of your reading comprehension issues. You have misunderstood about as badly as one can get.

Dizredux

Between your birds will always produce birds will always produce birds and your evolution is not random gaffe, you're doing very poorly addressing the content of your posts.

 

[Dizredux]

Between your birds will always produce birds will always produce birds and your evolution is not random gaffe, you're doing very poorly addressing the content of your posts.

The bird statement was a perfectly reasonable one looking at the issue from a cladistics view. That you could not understand what I was saying is not my issue but yours.

Next, what evolution gaffe? I carefully explained to you that evolution has both random and non random elements and is not considered to be a random process because of the non random aspects of natural selection. Again, that you were unable to understand what I wrote is not my issue.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

The bird statement was a perfectly reasonable one looking at the issue from a cladistics view. That you could not understand what I was saying is not my issue but yours.

You were saying that birds will always produce birds. Nothing to misunderstand about that. Now you're wanting to have something other than birds producing birds.

Next, what evolution gaffe? I carefully explained to you that evolution has both random and non random elements and is not considered to be a random process because of the non random aspects of natural selection. Again, that you were unable to understand what I wrote is not my issue.

Dizredux

Of course it's considered to be a random process. Creation by mutations which are random introduces the new life form on which natural selection works. Without the creation produced by random mutations, there would be no new life forms. Read the sources I gave you again. Slowly. Move your lips if you must.

 

[Davian]

You were saying that birds will always produce birds. Nothing to misunderstand about that. Now you're wanting to have something other than birds producing birds.



Of course it's considered to be a random process. Creation by mutations which are random introduces the new life form on which natural selection works. Without the creation produced by random mutations, there would be no new life forms. Read the sources I gave you again. Slowly. Move your lips if you must.

Feel that Christian love.

 

[justlookinla]

Feel that Christian love.

 

[Davian]

I was being entirely sarcastic. "Love" is not what comes across in your posts.

 

[justlookinla]

I was being entirely sarcastic. "Love" is not what comes across in your posts.

Oh, I realize you're of the antichrist spirit (per scripture). I'm not surprised by your view.

 

[Davian]

Oh, I realize you're of the antichrist spirit (per scripture). I'm not surprised by your view.

Keep it coming. My kids find this stuff hilarious.

 

[justlookinla]

Keep it coming. My kids find this stuff hilarious.

1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jn_2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Are they learning to deny Jesus Christ from you?

 

[bhsmte]

Keep it coming. My kids find this stuff hilarious.

So do my two psychologist friends, who jump on here for kicks every once in a while.

Great material - text book stuff!

 

[justlookinla]

So do my two psychologist friends, who jump on here for kicks every once in a while.

Great material - text book stuff!

Are they antichrist (per scripture) also?

 

[Davian]

1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jn_2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Are they learning to deny Jesus Christ from you?

lol. Not at all. At this moment, that would be your doing. Another poster phrased it quite appropriately. They agreed with that.

I have not impressed my opinion on them one way other, and they appear to have settled into the neutral position - disbelief in deities. Keep in mind we don't go to church, and in school only my eldest has encountered creationism or the bible brought up in class once, and that was not until this year (grade 12). They just don't see gods as anything other than characters in books. <shrug>

However, one must expose them to various viewpoints, and rather than the going through all that awkwardness of having these discussions with family (Christian) (my wife's side) I show them what I encounter here, with people like yourself.

For other other subjects, such as ancient aliens visiting pre-columbian civilizations, there are other sites.

Keep it coming.

Hey - did you ever make it to the library?

 

[justlookinla]

lol. Not at all. At this moment, that would be your doing. Another poster phrased it quite appropriately. They agreed with that.

I would expect no other response from the antichrist spirit (per scripture).

I have not impressed my opinion on them one way other, and they appear to have settled into the neutral position - disbelief in deities. Keep in mind we don't go to church, and in school only my eldest has encountered creationism or the bible brought up in class once, and that was not until this year (grade 12). They just don't see gods as anything other than characters in books. <shrug>

I find it hard to believe you've not impressed them with your constant mockery and ridicule of Christians and their beliefs. Again, that's a direct reflection of the antichrist spirit to which you submit.

However, one must expose them to various viewpoints, and rather than the going through all that awkwardness of having these discussions with family (Christian) (my wife's side) I show them what I encounter here, with people like yourself.

For other other subjects, such as ancient aliens visiting pre-columbian civilizations, there are other sites.

Keep it coming.

Hey - did you ever make it to the library?

Oh, I plan to keep it coming.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Oh, I plan to keep it coming.

Why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, embracing the view that humanity was created ONLY by random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago is the cornerstone of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

If you have any evidence that atheistic Darwinist creationism accepts a creationist view contrary to this, please post it.

How many times are you going to repeat this false dichotomy an strawman?

I have personally explained it dozens of times to you that this mantra makes no sense and is a false representation of the theory as it is known in mainstream biology.

Why do you act as if it was never explained to you?
What do you hope to accomplish by this blatant dishonesty?
Do you expect to win over people to your camp by using obvious lies and falsehoods?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The amazing thing is folks are claiming that birds will always produce birds which results in the conclusion that the first life form from long long ago was a bird.

Maybe in lala-land.

However, out here in the real world, where people understand basic taxonomy, not so much.

But hey, don't let rational thinking get in the way of your dishonest mantra's.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You confuse a bird with an elephant? Of course not. But elephants produced elephants produce elephants. Maybe the first life form was an elephant?

You're not addressing the issue at all.

You're not understanding the issue.

Go read a 2nd grade biology book. You know, where they teach you about taxa. Where they explain how species are classified.

You might learn that a human is an eukaryote, tetrapod, mammal, primate, homo sapiens. And how these taxa fall into a nested hierarchy unifying the different species on different levels where they meet at the ancestral nodes.

Here's an exercise for you to force you to look it up...

Please provide us with the FULL taxonomical classification of the following species:

- whale
- tiger
- lion
- chimp
- human
- eagle

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which was first? The canine or the primate or the mammal or the reptile....or the pine tree?

The eukaryote cell.